The thing about spec-op jobs is that the scenarios in each event are specific and unique, which is why they are reserved for the special forces. If they were not unique and demanding of elite operatives then instead of SAS being sent to a critical situation ordinary 'Bobbies' (Brit coppers) would be sent. The situations that ask for special operatives are highly unique occurences that require highly unique operatives.
As for the Moscow situation i highly doubt any special forces team from anywhere in the world could have done any better. Not the British SAS, nor the American Delta Teams, not the Israeli Sayeret teams, and not the French GIGN. All these teams have been created for operations like the one in Moscow, and each of them have past histories of total success, partial success (and some even total failure). However criticizing a spec-op group because of a botched job is silly because the situation was one that had no place for second guessing, and most of the times the special operatives are working with time and pressure constraints.
For example when the GIGN had to takeover the Airbus A300 in 1994 from Algerian terrorists. The GIGN were forced to rush in before schedule when the terrorists started killing hostages in their demand for fuel. There were 177 hostages in a plane, and obviously there were some casualties on the good side (including 4 GIGN operatives). But they did their job and the big majority of the hostages went home ...which means a success (the total number of terrorists were less than 10).
Same thing when the Israeli Sayeret (i believe it was Sayeret Mat'Kal) went in for the Entebbe raid in 1976. The Israelis managed to rescue the Israeli hostages, but at a loss of 3 hostages and 1 Sayeret operative (the total number of terrorists were 8).
As for the SAS their best day (known to the public) was 1980 when they handled the terrorists who had taken over the Iranian embassy in London demanding change in Iran.After ELEVEN WEEKS (almost 3 months) of negotiation the SAS decided to storm in (in those 11 weeks they had constructed a replica of the embassy and thus had almost 3 months of training). No hostages were killed in this case (and the Total number of terrorists was 6).
Now, in this Moscow situation there were around 50 terrorists. Fifty terrorists! Compare that number with the previous scenarios that had an average of around 7 terrorists. And the total number of hostages in the Moscow scenario was 750. Compare that with the above scenarios that had much fewer hostages. Also compare that in the Moscow case the Spetsgruppa al'fa special forces had to go in immediately because the Chechnyans had started murdering hostages ...and compare that with the SAS scenario where the SAS had trained for almost 3 months in a replica of the embassy.
And even think of the DELTA operation in 1980. Those brave Delta force men died when the thing got messed up before it even started due to the plane collusion! However you will notice that the special operation units of the world never criticized that operation because they know situations like that can easily go out of hand. There is usually a huge respect between spec-ops teams since they know how hard their job is.
Which is why seeing someone criticize the Russian effort (which was a huge success when you think of what they had to deal with), or seeing someone critique the Delta Force operation are both silly. I doubt the Russian spetsgruppa would have performed the Entebbe raid better than the Israeli Sayeret; I doubt the GIGN would have performed much better than the SAS operation in the embassy; and i doubt the Delta force would have perfomed better than the spetsgruppa alfa in the Moscow deal.
Comparing teams and criticizing them is just an exercise in folly. Although i am sorry many hostages died (90 at last estimate) i am certain that under the same situations, where the special-ops are forced to act immediately by terrorists slaying hostages, i doubt any spec-op team in the world would have done much better. Some may have saved 20 extra lives, others would have lost 10 extra. But the toll would have been more or less the same under the circumstances.
Oh I completely disagree.
The Russians came in through established fields of fire after creating a diversion [on the ground and through the windows].
Bottomline....cheesy and ameteur.
Nothing personal it just is what it is.
I can appreciate how they used crawlspaces in order to position themselves for certain shots and I give them kudos for that as well as using an apparent sleeping agent [that may or may not be leading to hostage deaths] but they didnt breach any walls or come through the ceiling.
They had the schematics for the structures involved. That is a tremendous advantage especially in identifying weakspots in the actual structure and for isolating dead space [used to enter through]. If they properly used thermal imaging, heartbeat monitors, crawl space surveillance and even radar [yep] then they should've been able to identify the terrorists positions and monitor their movements and isolate certain terrorist protocols and habits.
When you do all of the above...all that remains is a small diversion [not a few grenades....I personally would've taken over their television and radio signals and performed a bogues breaking news event in which Osama Bin Laden was going to make a statement about the "Muslim Chechen Brothers and their Jihad in Moscow" in say ten minutes...that would've completely broke their defensive focus] followed by fast, coordinated, violent assault using calibrated force to take out terrorists with head shots. You put two shooters on the chics holding the demo and put three rounds [per Operator] in them. They held the hostages together in a central location...your initial focus is "immediately" securing them by coming through the walls and ceiling [and floor if possible]. From there you flow outward and take out the terrorists perimeter. What the snipers dont get, you're C or D teams [and security] will. The bigger the structure you are storming...the easier it is for you to find a weakness and harder for the terrorists to constantly defend [properly].
I wont speak for any of the units you mentioned but I guarantee you that Marine Corps FAST companies could've done a better job then the Russians did. And if we would've used the technics listed above...then the teams you listed would've also.